Soviet 1980s UK nuclear attack plans
None but a blockhead
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soviet 1980s UK nuclear attack plans
This is a bit tangential, but I'm trying to find a reference to Soviet plans for European conflict in the 1980s. In particular, I once read - but cannot now find - a description of a plan to use nuclear weapons in the North Sea with two aims - to destroy the oil field infrastructure, and to wipe out military installations along the Scottish east coast.
I can find lots on the European theatre plans for the 1970s, but not much that explicitly covers what was in store for the UK, and practically nothing covering the period when the North Sea oil production had become a major economic concern. Such an attack doesn't seem to have been part of the infamous 1983 Wintex-Cimex wargames, so I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined it, or whether it was a piece of speculative fiction masquerading as post Cold War revelations.
Any gen either way most welcome.
I can find lots on the European theatre plans for the 1970s, but not much that explicitly covers what was in store for the UK, and practically nothing covering the period when the North Sea oil production had become a major economic concern. Such an attack doesn't seem to have been part of the infamous 1983 Wintex-Cimex wargames, so I'm beginning to wonder if I imagined it, or whether it was a piece of speculative fiction masquerading as post Cold War revelations.
Any gen either way most welcome.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF
Are you conducting your research in English only: Possibly try translating your search terms into Eastern European languages as a possible area of activity.
I have never seen this my self: but I bet something like this has been done ? - But you might need translation of the search results.
CAT III
I have never seen this my self: but I bet something like this has been done ? - But you might need translation of the search results.
CAT III
Last edited by Guest 112233; 5th May 2015 at 19:39. Reason: Extra Info
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Last edited by ORAC; 6th May 2015 at 09:37.
Unfortunately you are unlikely to find anything more specific than you would about US\UK strike plans. Although there is a fair amount of general information, everyone is very coy about details of precise targeting plans. Although broad target categories have been described: e.g. nuclear related facilities, air defence sites, C3 installations; strategic industrial sites; it doesn't get much more specific than that.
In some instances you could do a bit of back plotting to try and reveal the planners' intentions. The book Project Emily which is an account of the Thor Project contains details of the pad alignments and the range brackets related to target sets. By making a few assumptions related to the CEP, yield and warhead effects you could probably come up with a list of likely targets. You could then attempt a similar exercise using whatever Soviet data you could find.
Take care in using some of the CPEx examples that are around. These are likely to be similar to the scenarios employed in Wintex etc. and not necessarily representative of actual plans.
YS
In some instances you could do a bit of back plotting to try and reveal the planners' intentions. The book Project Emily which is an account of the Thor Project contains details of the pad alignments and the range brackets related to target sets. By making a few assumptions related to the CEP, yield and warhead effects you could probably come up with a list of likely targets. You could then attempt a similar exercise using whatever Soviet data you could find.
Take care in using some of the CPEx examples that are around. These are likely to be similar to the scenarios employed in Wintex etc. and not necessarily representative of actual plans.
YS
None but a blockhead
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, everyone. Seems that there really isn't much online, and it's all too recent for anything to appear in the PRO, so I'll have to pursue other channels. Google Translate will only get a chap so far!
But I do wonder where I got the idea from in the first place, and where it's gone.
But I do wonder where I got the idea from in the first place, and where it's gone.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Dar Nunder
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked so well as a deterrent was that no-one could cover all the targets that needed to be covered to ensure a commanding victory.
SLF,
you might care to read this thread on another forum. It may give you some insight into what was involved, at least from the UK perspective.
etimegev
There was more than enough nuclear capacity to ensure the end of life on earth. The reasons why deterrence "worked" are much more complex than that.
YS
you might care to read this thread on another forum. It may give you some insight into what was involved, at least from the UK perspective.
etimegev
The reason MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked so well as a deterrent was that no-one could cover all the targets that needed to be covered to ensure a commanding victory.
YS
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Dar Nunder
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree that there was enough to end all life but that would have taken a while after the initial onslaught before the effects kicked in planet-wide (shades of On the Beach etc), but with the CEP and yields during the Cold War it would have taken more than one weapon, even a biggy (and there weren't a huge number of them) to ensure that the target was taken out. So, just taking the UK, count the number that HAD to be taken out by the Sovs - naval bases, ports used for European reinforcement, strategic air bases - including dispersal airfields, nuclear submarine ports, major command centres and army logistical centres. Then start counting the targets in the rest of Europe, then start counting the targets in the US 
The situation was the same for NATO targeting them - and they had the advantage of distance to hide stuff from us.
All in all nowhere near enough to guarantee success but enough to make the other side very very fearful of kicking off!
The situation was the same for NATO targeting them - and they had the advantage of distance to hide stuff from us.
All in all nowhere near enough to guarantee success but enough to make the other side very very fearful of kicking off!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thanks, everyone. Seems that there really isn't much online, and it's all too recent for anything to appear in the PRO, so I'll have to pursue other channels. Google Translate will only get a chap so far! But I do wonder where I got the idea from in the first place, and where it's gone.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American experiments during WW2 conclusively demonstrated that creating a tidal wave by means of underwater/sea surface explosions simply doesn't work. The proposal was to clear beaches and beachhead areas by means of tidal waves, prior to making the landings.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always imagined that more than one warhead would need to be targeted on high value targets to ensure minimal chance of malfunction allowing a target to escape destruction. And possibly using different delivery vehicle for each warehead, in case a rocket failed to launch or malfunctioned in some other way.
Thus the number of wareheads required to assure counterforce is significantly higher than at first glance. Also, presumably need to stagger in time the wareheads so first one doesn't destroy the second, although if the second is only there in ase first fails, then no need to stagger them.
I have no idea if above is correct, but the planning/logistics of a nuclear strike would be bloody complex to say the least.
Thus the number of wareheads required to assure counterforce is significantly higher than at first glance. Also, presumably need to stagger in time the wareheads so first one doesn't destroy the second, although if the second is only there in ase first fails, then no need to stagger them.
I have no idea if above is correct, but the planning/logistics of a nuclear strike would be bloody complex to say the least.
None but a blockhead
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I learn about nuclear warfare, the less I have any confidence that it would result in anything but abject disaster for everyone. One tries not to think about small matters such as the hundred warheads that Pakistan is supposed to have. So many of the scenarios seem to be post-facto "we have the damn things, so what do we do with them" rather than "here's an effective use with a high possibility of a controlled, desired outcome".
I also remember that my best friend at school in the 80s had his digital watch countdown timer pre-programmed to four minutes, because that was the amount of warning we'd been told to expect. We lived in Plymouth, so there was little doubt we'd be one of the first.
However. Thanks very much for the recollection, Orac - I now know I wasn't mistaken in thinking that such a thing was on the cards, although that's earlier than I expected. Is AD Air Defence? That means the oil side of things wasn't a primary consideration, and that it's worth checking back further.
I also remember that my best friend at school in the 80s had his digital watch countdown timer pre-programmed to four minutes, because that was the amount of warning we'd been told to expect. We lived in Plymouth, so there was little doubt we'd be one of the first.
However. Thanks very much for the recollection, Orac - I now know I wasn't mistaken in thinking that such a thing was on the cards, although that's earlier than I expected. Is AD Air Defence? That means the oil side of things wasn't a primary consideration, and that it's worth checking back further.
